Body fat percentage and handheld measuring device

frankie671
frankie671 Posts: 51 Member
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
So I've been weight training for about 2 months now and counting my macros I am really noticing a difference in my body. I feel like I look a lot tighter and my strength has definitely improved tons. I used the rubbish body fat and weight machine at the gym and it says I've gone from 27% to 26% body fat (I don't know how accurate it is but so long as it shows a decline I'm happy).

I wanted to get a more accurate reading so I asked one of the trainers if they would mind measuring it for me with calipers. They said they didn't have any but offered to take my body fat with this handheld device, from googling it I think it's an Omron. The reading said I was like 27.9% body fat! This really made me disheartened, so I looked it up and it seems like quite a few people have had inaccurate readings from this.

Just some background: I weight train 4-5x a week, do an hour of cardio at the weekend, and walk between 10k and 15k steps a day along with eating at maintenance and counting macros. There seems to be no way my body fat could have gone UP. I KNOW I look better... so I'm choosing to ignore the reading I think.

Has anyone else had inaccurate readings from these things?

Replies

  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Any form of handheld device (BIA - Bioelectrical impedance analysis) are notoriously inaccurate. I believe the general rule is that the results can be +/-5% however others have seen higher variance.
    The best methods are calipers and DEXA scans.
  • curlsintherack
    curlsintherack Posts: 465 Member
    the machines work by sending an electrical signal through your body. your hydration levels can have a huge effect on your body fat readings as water conducts electricity. That being said I wouldn't trust any reading I got after a workout when you may be in more of a state of dehydration than normal.

    I own the device your talking about and it requires setting it up a profile with your gender age height weight, and whether you consider yourself an athlete or a normal person maybe it wasn't set up perfectly but I'm guessing that most of us would be rather discouraged to find out just how much fat we're actually carrying around. I know I was.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    I'm going to PM you about this, because it's a pain in the butt to re-type. :)
  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    Calipers are much more accurate than impedance devices, but they require a learning curve. I believe a 7-point test will get you more accuracy than a 3, which means you'll also need another person to help.

    Once you get it dialed in, though, they're pretty accurate IMO. I have an impedance device that currently calculates my BF at 24%. My calipers have me between 12-13, which I think is pretty close to my picture.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Calipers are going to be HEAVILY dependent on the person using the calipers.

    Unless for some reason you need to know your body-fat percentage (majority of people don't need this info) I would consider one or more of the following things:

    1) Disregard it entirely.
    2) Use calipers but do not bother calculating the results, just use the actual skinfold measurements and track whether or not the skinfolds themselves decrease which would indicate reductions in fat mass. Calculating can actually introduce additional error since you're dealing with multiple sites which all have an associated error margin and you're multiplying them.
    3) Use body measurements, weight, and subjective measures to track progress.


    BIA is insanely inaccurate with individual error margins in the neighborhood of 8-9% which is pretty bad, and it's also not accurate in tracking trends.

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-4-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-3-and-4-bod-pod-and-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/
  • frankie671
    frankie671 Posts: 51 Member
    Thanks guys. The only reason I want to know my body fat is because I'm happy with my weight and want a way to track my progress more so than just inches etc. I think I'll buy some calipers and enlist the help of my girlfriend to take measurements. Thanks :)
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    frankie671 wrote: »
    Thanks guys. The only reason I want to know my body fat is because I'm happy with my weight and want a way to track my progress more so than just inches etc. I think I'll buy some calipers and enlist the help of my girlfriend to take measurements. Thanks :)

    You can do this but consider that the error rate alone may make this not a good idea.

    If the goal is to improve body composition you can still incorporate a mix of subjective and objective measures to determine progress.

    Just for example if I have someone maintaining bodyweight but they are eating a reasonable amount of protein and they are making gym performance improvements and measurements are changing favorably then I can deduce that favorable body composition changes are occurring.
  • singletrackmtbr
    singletrackmtbr Posts: 644 Member
    I don't agree. Calipers with practice can become a very useful tool. Subjective data is useful, but any scientist will tell you it is just that:subjective.

    When you are losing a lot of weight BF percentage isn't too valuable. Rest assured it's probably going down. But when you are at or near your goals and strength training, it can be a great help.

    I do agree that calipers are only as good as the user. Just like any other skill, practice makes perfect. Just like with the scale one measurement shouldn't be taken as gospel, but trends are very useful.

    Anecdotally I've been at goal weight for months. I almost don't care what that number is anymore. My fitness goal is to decrease BF. Yes, I can see subjectively if things change, but I can't track that, and there are too many variables.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    If you REALLY want to know what your BF% is with any degree of accuracy, get a DXA scan or get weighed hydrostatically. They are the onLy reliable ways to measure BF
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    If you REALLY want to know what your BF% is with any degree of accuracy, get a DXA scan or get weighed hydrostatically. They are the onLy reliable ways to measure BF

    And even those are not terribly reliable when you look at individual error rates.

    Hydrostatic - 5-6% individual error rate
    DEXA - 4-10% individual error rate

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=162

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-5-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-5-and-6-skinfolds-and-dual-energy-x-ray-absorptiometry-dexa/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-6-dexa/
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    Not exactly sure how critical the number is and I am not saying this is accurate but here is my take. I have an Aria FitBit WiFi scale and it measures via the electric conductivity method. When I was starting to lose I was at 23.6% and at my lowest weight I was at 15.6%. This was also when my abs started to appear. As I started to put weight back on it increased. So I have no idea how accurate the % is but it does seem to follow my body fat decrease and increase accurately. It is very convenient so its good enough for me but the only way to measure how accurate it is to find another device and hope that it is accurate.
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    frankie671 wrote: »
    So I've been weight training for about 2 months now and counting my macros I am really noticing a difference in my body. I feel like I look a lot tighter and my strength has definitely improved tons. I used the rubbish body fat and weight machine at the gym and it says I've gone from 27% to 26% body fat (I don't know how accurate it is but so long as it shows a decline I'm happy).

    I wanted to get a more accurate reading so I asked one of the trainers if they would mind measuring it for me with calipers. They said they didn't have any but offered to take my body fat with this handheld device, from googling it I think it's an Omron. The reading said I was like 27.9% body fat! This really made me disheartened, so I looked it up and it seems like quite a few people have had inaccurate readings from this.

    Just some background: I weight train 4-5x a week, do an hour of cardio at the weekend, and walk between 10k and 15k steps a day along with eating at maintenance and counting macros. There seems to be no way my body fat could have gone UP. I KNOW I look better... so I'm choosing to ignore the reading I think.

    Has anyone else had inaccurate readings from these things?

    You'll be more accurate just looking in the mirror and comparing your physique to all of the online pictures...

    25431601281_50dc6efa75_o.jpg

    http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    frankie671 wrote: »
    So I've been weight training for about 2 months now and counting my macros I am really noticing a difference in my body. I feel like I look a lot tighter and my strength has definitely improved tons. I used the rubbish body fat and weight machine at the gym and it says I've gone from 27% to 26% body fat (I don't know how accurate it is but so long as it shows a decline I'm happy).

    I wanted to get a more accurate reading so I asked one of the trainers if they would mind measuring it for me with calipers. They said they didn't have any but offered to take my body fat with this handheld device, from googling it I think it's an Omron. The reading said I was like 27.9% body fat! This really made me disheartened, so I looked it up and it seems like quite a few people have had inaccurate readings from this.

    Just some background: I weight train 4-5x a week, do an hour of cardio at the weekend, and walk between 10k and 15k steps a day along with eating at maintenance and counting macros. There seems to be no way my body fat could have gone UP. I KNOW I look better... so I'm choosing to ignore the reading I think.

    Has anyone else had inaccurate readings from these things?

    You'll be more accurate just looking in the mirror and comparing your physique with what you see in the online photographs.

    25431601281_50dc6efa75_o.jpg

    http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/
This discussion has been closed.

Categories